Local Blogs

About this blog: The Raucous Caucus shares the southpaw perspectives of this Boomer on the state of the nation, the world, and, sometimes, other stuff. I enjoy crafting it to keep current, and occasionally to rant on some issue I care about deeply... (More)

About this blog: The Raucous Caucus shares the southpaw perspectives of this Boomer on the state of the nation, the world, and, sometimes, other stuff. I enjoy crafting it to keep current, and occasionally to rant on some issue I care about deeply. My long, strange career trip has included law and management jobs in two Fortune 50 companies, before founding the legal search and staffing firm Cushing Group, Recruiters. I've lectured on negotiation and settlement strategy, and teach graduate courses at Golden Gate University (Adjunct of the Year for a doctoral seminar on business, law and society). Illinois, Texas and California (Inactive) admitted me to law practice; I hold JD and MBA degrees from the University of Illinois, and a BGS from the University of Michigan, with Distinction. There -- Go Blue! Personally, my daughters are a lawyer in NY, and a pre-med student in NM - their lives-and-times often animate these columns. I'm active in animal advocacy matters, having led a citizen team that took Alameda's city animal shelter to a non-profit operation - we saved $600K annually and the lives of some 700 companion animals/year vs. the City's best alternative. I'm delighted with that success. My family has re-homed 144 foster animals over many years; we host four boisterous border collies of our own. Mostly for humane movement efforts, I was nominated for GQ magazine's 2009 Better Men, Better World Award. You may notice that many of my rants relate to critter issues. In addition to the Raucous Caucus blog, I frequently contribute to The BARK magazine, and am a proud Moderator emeritus on the popular news and humor website www.Fark.com. I prefer scotch over imported beer (Hide)

Hot enough for you?

Uploaded: May 13, 2014

The desperate, rear-guard postings of climate deniers in Brother Tim's recent blog surprised me ? apparently the new tack of that well-funded little band of ostriches is to declare victory via public apathy, and just stop all this inconvenient thinking. That's obviously, equally, as at-odds with the facts as is denial science itself. I've been considering a climate change ? aw hell, who are we kidding? ? Global Warming-themed post for a while. For those deniers who are staunchly weather-based, this seems a good week for it. It's also true that the news, while bad, has not been uniformly catastrophic.

Prime among the bits of good news is that the cost of solar power keeps falling, and not just a little. The price of solar panels has fallen by fully 75% in just the past decade alone. That will make a dent in our collective, unconsidered spewage of greenhouse gases ? notably CO2 emissions from coal-powered power plants.

Climate policy dismal pessimist Paul Krugman was even moved to write: "Thanks to this technological leap forward, the climate panel can talk about "decarbonizing" electricity generation as a realistic goal ? and since coal-fired power plants are a very large part of the climate problem, that's a big part of the solution right there."

Lest we falsely feel the cool breeze of relief, however, please note that a 'goal' is not a 'reality.' In California, All renewable energy currently generates only about 30% of our electricity ? with hydropower accounting for more than half of that minor fraction (Interestingly, we are second to Texas among all states in total, non-hydro renewables generation. Most of theirs comes from wind, which, if you know many Texans, may make it less surprising).

Further, as Krugman warns in the same article: "The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong? Oh, wait."

'Oh, wait' was the inspiration for Jared Diamond's book of a few years ago: "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed." In it, he examined the reasons why a dozen past civilizations thrived, and then disappeared (Easter Island, Mayans, Greenland Norse, etc.). Those societies often grew over long periods of time, but then failed abruptly. He was looking for threads that might inform our current deliberations on threats to the now-worldwide civilization. He ended-up (and remains) 51% optimistic about humanity's chances in confronting several current crises (including, but not limited to warming).

Diamond identified several determinants of success in confronting societal challenges. Two in particular are relevant here, and they give me less cause for optimism than he seems to feel (but then, he's 75, and as a Much Younger man I have a longer expectancy over which to worry).

His first concern is with conflicts of interest between near term customs and what needs to be done. Quoth Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his paycheck depends on his Not understanding it." He finds this especially troubling if the decision-making/influencing 'elites' are able to insulate themselves from the consequences of indecision. In America's increasingly oligarchic society, those conflicts are deep, and the wealth that underwrites the oligarchs also buys ample insulation.

In a nation where a majority of Congressfolk are millionaires, and their influencers are now effectively unbridled in bestowing largess via thinly-veiled bribes, those who profit mightily from the status quo have power out of all proportion to their numbers. Under such influence, the cap-and-trade platform of Mr. McCain in 2008 can devolve into unyielding, unthinking, intractable opposition to anything vaguely resembling it by 2010 (and more so recently, in case that's possible). Without decision-makers who can see beyond the well-cooled confines of their gated intellectual communities, the US is unlikely to address Warming effectively, or in time. I repeat plaintively, (and will again) ? where have you gone, Teddy Roosevelt?

Second, Diamond suggests that the greater the gap between qualities that characterize and helped build civilizations, and the qualities Now needed to address current challenges, the lower will be the probability of success. Here we have a very mixed bag.

On the one hand, we Americans have traditionally been known for a can-do spirit that can conquer The Wilderness and split the atom. Or put men on the moon, unless you want to deny that, too (there's significant overlap between devotees of both denials). On the other hand, that urge to compete and dominate can work at cross-purposes in an era where the frontiers have closed, living In-Concert With the natural world is needed, and atom-smashing's dark side perpetually threatens mass destruction.

Further, the American preference for isolationism over sustained engagement is a deep source of concern in today's global village and the 'interconnected web of all existence.' The US, which was only recently supplanted as the world's greenhouse-gassiest economy by China, and is the undisputed per capita emissions champeen, cannot solve the global warming crisis alone. This is a slow-mo, global crisis, that can only be surmounted by sustained, global cooperation. Our isolationism, however, can lead us directly away from such engagement, and even provoke comments like the stunningly simple-minded "The 'warmists' (really? ? not the Marxist-warmistas?) need to focus their effort in China, India and Indonesia. Good luck with that."

That's the very height of folly; as countries develop, their emissions inevitably climb, as ours did. Unless ways are found and shared, to create and promote less-carbon-intensive growth, we will All be heirs to a world with crippled carrying capacity, and all the war and tragedy that inevitably shall ensue. The difference is that we have the opportunity to lead, if only we'll take it. If only ?

I am frankly not optimistic on that score, either. There comes a time in the famous 'frog in a warming pot' analogy when the frog is past the point of no-return ? he's dead, he just doesn't know it, quite yet. Are we there yet, fellow frogs? It's something to ponder this week, while mopping your brow ? and, just maybe, ordering solar?

Posted by Tom Cushing,
a resident of Alamo,
on May 13, 2014 at 4:16 pm

To my way of thinking, Dan, Global Warming was the original term for the man-made phenomenon, and that's the one I fear. I see no need to parse the phraseology or soften the language.

I have not perused your link, because I do not feel the need to dignify the issue by pretending there's any meaningful debate. There isn't. We take action on far less dire threats with far less definitive data and intel. And even if we're wrong, we're actually way ahead -- as opposed to other decisions, like invading countries for instance. But we're not wrong here. .

Further, dammit Dan, I am not a scientist, nor am I a doctor. When my doc comes back with a diagnosis, I do not consult every corner of the web to find some guy who will represent himself as thus-and-so, and whose credentials I do not know, cannot know, or trust -- and who may want to poke holes in the diagnosis. And even if he's right, which he's not, I couldn't tell the difference anyway.

That's why there are expert witnesses, and they have spoken -- consistently, repeatedly, over time and honestly, with rising alarm, and essentially, unanimously. This is beyond debate. It's akin to an invitation to debate creationism -- you want to believe it -- fine. But I'm not going to put your credulous self in charge of education if you do. So I decline your invitation to waste my time. Just think of me as Ferris: Web Link

Finally, my third chin? Really Dan? You're down to fat jokes? I'm fat and therefore what? (Almost) needless to point out, that reveals a great deal more about you than about me. Kind of like the first 20 seconds of this clip: Web Link Schoolyard stuff.

Democrats killed cap & trade. They controlled the house, senate, and presidency when that legislation was proposed. Coal state Democrats refused to support it. Obama could?ve used his political muscle to pass it. But passing Obamacare was more important than saving the world from climate change. That shows you Democrat priorities.

Obama dithered during his first term. He showed up for just one day at the Climate Change summit in Copenhagen. He didn?t even go to the one in Rio.

Obama pretended to support coal during the 2012 election because he needed Ohio to get re-elected. After the election, he switched tunes, kind of like he did with gay marriage.

After the 2012 election, the Greens said, okay, you passed Obamacare, you took care of the gays in the military thingy, you unilaterally made the Dream Act happen, you increased taxes, etc., etc., now it?s our turn.

Only it?s too late. It was too late to stop climate change in 2005. Poor people in China and India want electricity. They?re sick of being poor. Coal is the only feasible power source. Earth is screwed. All your EPA rules, electric cars, solar panels, aren?t going to do squat. Plus, green mandates to reduce carbon will hurt the U.S. economy.

I point all this out yesterday in a thread about Obama and Solar panels. I included all the facts & figures and whatnot on that thread if you care to read it.

Paragraph 9. Yup, Tommy just can't write an article without attacking the GOP. Your article Tom, would have had some credibility, not much but some, had you left out Mc Cain. Any fat cat Dems out there? Tommy? Every political party has their money makers, Cushing.

Posted by Tom Cushing,
a resident of Alamo,
on May 14, 2014 at 7:15 am

Hi Biff: I am not certain how credibility links to paragraph 9 -- I used it primarily as one recent, relevant example of the power of those insulated puppeteers, err, 'elites' to control and reverse the policy choices of their beneficiaries, in ways that'll hurt us all. I think it fits. And truth be told, I didn't remember that Mr. McCain touted cap-and-trade until I ran across it while doing background for this piece.

Now, it's possible that the GOP promptly flipped on this issue more out of general hostility to Mr. Obama, since the idea was now his, than on specific orders from the Mssrs. Koch. Probably some of both -- but the fact remains that oligarchs are pulling the policy strings -- and what they want may not contribute to any success in confronting global warming. THAT's the problem paragraph 9 seeks to address. Credibly.

"... In an interesting paper that appeared in the journal Global Environmental Change, a group of scholars, including Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard, and Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton, note that so-called climate skeptics frequently accuse climate scientists of ?alarmism? and ?overreacting to evidence of human impacts on the climate system.? But, when you actually measure the predictions that climate scientists have made against observations of how the climate has already changed, you find the exact opposite: a pattern ?of under- rather than over-prediction? emerges."

"The scholars attribute this bias to the norms of scientific discourse: ?The scientific values of rationality, dispassion, and self-restraint tend to lead scientists to demand greater levels of evidence in support of surprising, dramatic, or alarming conclusions.? They call this tendency ?erring on the side of least drama,? or E.S.L.D. for short."

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 14, 2014 at 10:27 amFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Oh Tom, stop with the feigned outrage.

Throwing out sentences like: "...well-funded little band of ostriches" doesn't exactly make you a victim. When I was young, I was taught that when someone makes the first strike (which is what bully's do), I was permitted a response.

What's that about those who live in glass houses...? Man up.

Hey, if you don't want to look at how your side has been fudging the numbers and perpetuating a lot of deception (which is being proven SCIENTIFICALLY BTW), that's fine by me. But then I'm not the one you should be calling "ostrich".

Posted by Tom Cushing,
a resident of Alamo,
on May 14, 2014 at 10:48 am

On a personal level Dan, my annoyance was not feigned.

If you do not understand the difference between an image that illustrates a relevant action (the familiar ostriches with their heads in the sand) and a pure insult based on status (third chin, flinging mud(?)), then how are you to be trusted with comprehending the differences between the scientific consensus on climate and the occasional outliars?

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 14, 2014 at 11:18 amFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Tom,

For someone who says "I see no need to parse the phraseology or soften the language.", your response seems a little...inconsistent...with your philosophy.

And as Lawyer you should know that language is everything. There's a reason why our political establishment has changed the description from Global Warming, to Climate Change, to now Climate Disruption.

If you willfully accept it, then so be it. Just don't expect we skeptics to just sit back and do nothing.

Posted by liberalism is a disease,
a resident of Birdland,
on May 14, 2014 at 11:29 amliberalism is a disease is a registered user.

Tom spouts: "I do not feel the need to dignify the issue by pretending there's any meaningful debate." I almost stopped reading after that ignorant, overzealous statement, but your blog is turning into a car wreck I can't turn my eyes away from. If you are trying to gain readers by being sensational, maybe you've accomplished your goal...now, back to 'saving the planet', as though man can change the climate.

So, Tom, let's pretend for a minute that we're supposed to take your climate sermon seriously: In your quest to slay the evil climate changers (like algores private jet), can you explain what the climate baseline is that you're trying to achieve? In other words, what exactly is the 'right climate' and how did you arrive at that plateau? If the 'settled science' of man-made climate change is not just an income redistribution scheme, then these same scientists must surely have a goal in mind once the scaremongering has quieted down.

Posted by Tom Cushing,
a resident of Alamo,
on May 14, 2014 at 11:51 am

@ Dan: "... sit back and do nothing" is exactly what I anticipate you'll do, more's the pity.

@libdis: whenever somebody asks me to do their homework, I tell them I have a dog who'll help them right out. I've already done research -- your turn.

Anyway, knowing the 'optimum' absolute temperature (which I do not) strikes me as far less important than knowing that it is changing too fast for humans, our property and processes, and the rest of life on the planet to adapt-to effectively. So, I would opt for a very, very slow rate of change in any direction. That's not what's happening, at all.

If there is good evidence that there is an optimum number, I'm sure that you can find it for yourself. Google is your friend, too.

And if I ever hear about Al Gore's jet again, I may puke. When you're sitting there in your steaming pot, you can croak at the other frogs: "But, but ... how was I to know? After all, Al Gore's Jet!! ROFLMAO!"

Posted by liberalism is a disease,
a resident of Birdland,
on May 14, 2014 at 12:43 pmliberalism is a disease is a registered user.

As I expected, there's no there, there. Your religious zeal and income confiscation schemes will heal all ills. Trust us...
Of course, since you can't identify a target temperature/climate model, you can never claim success or failure, so the ploy continues on like our taxes and bridge tolls...never ending.
It's funny, that those on the right are criticized as being fear mongers for real threats like terrorism and the national debt, but the hysteria around these windmills you tilt at is an unprecedented marketing scheme that borders on the Orwellian.
If you're really serious about changing global climate, start by traveling to India and China and fix their issues first, before they get worse (or they kill you first for destroying their economy).
I'm sure if man-bear-pig (Google it) knew what a climate alarmist you are, he'd be more than willing to let you ride in the wheel well of his jet. Dress warm.
Bye now, I've got a pot to boil...mmmmm, frog legs.

If you can only think of a one-dimensional point -- one optimum temperature, say -- then all logic will be lost on you. As I clearly stated, optimal temp is not important -- rate of change is important. So victory would -- quite obviously -- be to arrest the accelerating rate of change.

But that would require at least the ability to contemplate a line, a-whole-nother dimension: temp on the y axis and time on the x, starting from the point when reliable data were available. I was holding the possibly vain hope you might grasp that.

Optimum temperature would be an impossibly values-laden exercise, even if it was useful, which it's not. More debate, when the time to honor The Flat Earth Debating Society has passed.

And Dan, yes please, do give up on me. Or else contemplate the outcome on the 2% chance you're right, and we invested in GHG reduction anyway. Not a bad result. Now consider the 98% chance that I'm right, but we've done nothing. Dinner is served, and it's You.

As you know, I do my part as best I can to mock and humiliate you. But I?ve never poked fun at your double chin. At least not publically. As far as you know.

In your view, global warming as simple as ABC: (A) If you believe in science, then (B) You know global warming is real, therefore (C) We must reduce CO2 emissions.

But you haven?t proven that reducing CO2 emissions is feasible from a political or technological standpoint, nor have you considered any number of other possible solutions.

It?s like someone who knows he must lose weight and concludes that the only solution is to cut off his arms and legs. Yes, you will lose weight, but at what cost? Fossil fuels are as essential to the world economy as arms and legs are to a body.

Fossil fuels currently provide 82% of world energy needs. They will provide at least 75% of the world?s energy through 2035. In the best case scenario, solar, wind and other renewables will provide less than 5% of world energy needs by 2035. CO2 emissions will INCREASE by 15 billion metric tons per year by 2040. That?s the U.S. EIA and IEA talking, not me. Web LinkWeb Link According to the IPCC, that amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere would make the worst aspects of global warming unpreventable (sea rise, mass extinction, extreme weather, etc.). Web Link

Posted by Tom Cushing,
a resident of Alamo,
on May 14, 2014 at 1:44 pm

@S-P: Yeah -- it may have been a big mistake to use Diamond's book -- maybe I should have used Kubler-Ross and her approach to the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. I think our boyz are somewhere in the first two stages.

At minimum, you've conquered the third stage, and recognized that our Mother Nature doesn't bargain. She's the Ultimate Honey Badger -- she doesn't care; she doesn't have-to -- but we do, and we have-to.

What's curious is that you've reached four, but you don't seem the least Depressed about it -- indeed, you seem to advise fiddling while Rome burns. I thought you'd at least be reading up on "how to profit from the coming apocalypse," or "Tax Strategies for Armageddon."

Or maybe you've reached Acceptance. I'm not there yet, as I do not think the humankind has begun to really turn its full attention to counter-measures -- so I hold-out hope. I know you're fond of trotting-out doomsday numbers, to make the point that resistance is futile. I hope not.

Posted by American,
a resident of Danville,
on May 14, 2014 at 1:58 pm

As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Tom on this issue. Not only do most credible scientist agree, but simply looking at the extreme world wide temperature and weather patterns the last few years, historically something drastic is occurring.

I hate big brother as much as the next guy, but this is going to end up being very similar to the issue of smoking. When I was in public high school in California, we actually had on the premises smoking sections for the students to smoke. The first law firm I worked for 23 years ago right out of law school in San Jose allowed smoking in the offices. if you went to almost any restaurant, there was always a smoking section. Finally, science, observation skills, and common sense dictated this was a problem, so slowly but surely government passed laws to limit and restrict smoking. Now, in many places, you are not even allowed to smoke in the privacy of your own home.

I think sooner than later we will start seeing more laws that restrict activity that contributes to global warming. As much as I hate government telling us what we can and can not do, there are health issues that require reasonable restrictions, and this probably is one of those issues.

By the way, it still pains me every time I see Al Gore lecturing us on how bad our behavior is to the environment, while he seems to wreck more havoc with his jets and other limousine liberal personal activities. He definitely should not being throwing rocks since he lives in a glass house.

It will probably take a Republican president to pass really tough laws dealing with global warming, just like it will probably take a Democrat to pass tough laws dealing with illegal immigration. The public usually assumes that if a President goes outside his traditional wheelhouse issues to the other side of the aisle, perhaps it is a good non-partisan issue. That probably applies to global warming. Lets hope President to be Chris Christy gets it done, and that nobody sinks to calling him fat.

It?s more like breathing. If you stopped breathing, your body would suffer extreme harm. Even reducing your breathing is harmful. It?s the same way with fossil fuels. It would result in economic and political chaos. Even cutting back a little bit would cut world economic growth and cause extreme harm to the hundreds of millions of people who live on the margins.

You can?t stop breathing oxygen until there?s a suitable alternative. Same thing with fossil fuels.

I am depressed about it. I like this planet.

But I?m also smart. I recognize global warming is a lost cause. The EIA, IEA and IPCC data prove it. Those who disagree are in denial.

Also every dollar spent on fighting that lost cause is a dollar that can?t be spent on better causes.

Green initiatives are expensive. California?s AB 32 will cost the average California family $2,500 per year in increased costs for gasoline, electricity, cement, and other carbon-intensive products. Web Link

AB 32 will cause California to have 262,000 fewer jobs by 2020 and cause California's economy to contract by 5.6%.

And Green spending doesn?t create jobs. The solar and wind industry employ the same number of people today as they did in 2008, despite $90 billion in federal government clean-energy stimulus spending in 2009. In other words, that $90 billion of government spending did not result in any net increase in renewable energy jobs.Web Link

The world would be better off if we could prevent global warming. But we can?t. Holding your breath for a miracle won?t help.

Posted by john,
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 14, 2014 at 5:05 pm

"...as though man can change the climate."

Where does a statement like that come from? Is that based on faith? Faith based science? It is totally unscientific. How do you know man can't change the climate? Isn't answering questions like that the realm of science?

Maybe the whole climate change thing is a hoax, but at least base your claims on science.

@>Cushing. Instead of using Mc Cain as an example Cushing, you could have used Pelosi. You know Pelosi, right? The former House Speaker who bought VISA stock in initial public offerings (IPOs) that earned hefty returns while she had access to insider information that would have been illegal for an average citizen to trade with.

Posted by Tom Cushing,
a resident of Alamo,
on May 15, 2014 at 6:47 am

I see, and that's because "Visa and Global Warming -- they're everywhere you want to be?" "Life takes Visa -- and gives CO2?" You might bother to link your scorn to the article, as I'm guessing you now might.

I still think mine better illustrates the enormous power of the puppeteers. Therein lies this danger, and many others.

Posted by Tom Cushing,
a resident of Alamo,
on May 15, 2014 at 9:05 am

I've gone after the Prez and his Administration on various things, like surveillance, tax policy, prosecution failures and drones. That said, it IS true that the Republicans' actions present a more target-rich environment.

Posted by Jillian Woodword,
a resident of Canyon Oaks,
on May 15, 2014 at 11:37 am

And there we have it. It begins with a gaggle of sillies who, provoked by a blogger who doesn't know anything about science or scientific method, then descends to yet more yokels citing paid off fracking hacks, and concludes with "You only criticize Dems," "Do not," "Do so." All in all, yet another stupefying spiral from the ignorant to the tragic. When a blog initiates a topic at ground zero (ignorance), there is no place to go but down.

Posted by Tom Cushing,
a resident of another community,
on May 15, 2014 at 1:01 pm

Wow, Jillian -- there'a really only been one 'other' poster hereabouts whose scattershot erudition could attack so many, so quickly. All the while consciously misapprehending the blog, and the comments, and adding no independent thought or content. This barren little punchbowl needed a bolus; thanks for sharing yours.

Once again, Tom is being mean to commentators. Tom, you are lucky that Jillian took time out from giving lectures in Europe in order to comment on your blog. How did the lectures go, Jillian? Are you ever going to tell us?

Jillian?s arguments are so precise and logical, they don?t need facts to back them up.

Jillian is so convincing, I think the only thing I can do is offer the following:

Forgive me, all life forms of the Earth, and all exquisitely unique and diverse sentient beings. I have colluded in your poisoning.

Posted by San Ramon Observer,
a resident of San Ramon,
on May 15, 2014 at 4:56 pmSan Ramon Observer is a registered user.

Tom,

I couldn't get through all of your readers' comments and your replies, but I liked the link John posted. It fits right into a revelation I had a few days ago about melting ice caps, which I plan to write about in my next blog.

By the way the Norse island is Iceland. Greenland was a red herring to throw potential invaders off track. Greenland is covered in ice, which is starting to melt and turn Greenland green. Is this a bad thing?

If there are bad things about ice melting in Greenland and the polar ice caps, what can we do to make those bad things into good things? I believe we can do a lot to turn those bad predictions to beneficial results. See my next blog for either a crazy speculation or a brilliant approach to solving at least some threats from global warming.

So who determines these so called "credible" climate scientists? Are they only credible because they say what the alarmists want them to say, and people like Al and Tom say they are credible? What about the hundreds of thousands "credible" climate scientists and "credible" weather scientist who say BS to these alarmist? Are their studies that dispute the so called experts not credible only because the mainstream media and people like Al and Tom say so?
Of course Tom had to throw out the piece about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet being a "goner". And, of course, it is only speculation based on current melt data and "their" models. (But then again, back in 2007 didn't the alarmists models say the Arctic ice sheet would be completely gone? More below on the Arctic.) What Tom and the people who created that "alarming" report failed to tell everyone is that the Eastern Sheet has grown rapidly, in fact, I find it fascinating that the Antarctic sea ice coverage reached the largest level on record, hitting 3.5 million sq. miles for the month of April 2014, according to the NASA funded National Snow and Ice Data Center. (Does anyone remember the climate change alarmists who took a "cruise" into the Antarctic in December to prove how climate change had wreaked havoc on the Antarctic, only to get stuck in a record level of ice.) And what about the same agencies report back in Sept. 2013 stating the Arctic ice pack had increased by 533,000 sq. miles, an increase of 29% over the 2012 level?
Has any of this data been put into the "credible" climate scientists models? We all know the answer to that question...

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 15, 2014 at 6:07 pmFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Tom,

Are you sure its only 98% and not 99%. Hopefully we're both alive and kicking in 20 years because when data reflects that the climate has only "changed" like it has since the beginning of time on earth, well...we know what will happen then don't we?

Of course, reality is that we will put into place programs that cripple the US economically, while the climate does exactly what it has been doing all along and your side will say "you see, it worked!". Meanwhile, we'll move on to the next panic.

And dinner is me? I believe if anyone can call dinner, that surely would be you Tom <--- joke :)

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 15, 2014 at 6:14 pmFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Ben,

Give up on this topic. Like the proverbial silly neighbor who deviantly puts his fingers in his ears and loudly says "lalalalalala", Tom will refuse to even look at the other side and discuss the outright lies and distortions that have been perpetrated on the public by his "scientists".

Posted by Tom Cushing,
a resident of Alamo,
on May 15, 2014 at 9:05 pm

Dan: no amount of goading will change the fact that the debate is long since over. Agreement already exists -- it doesn't matter if I want it. If you and Ben need to catch up, there's a new 800-page report that'll answer your dishonest questions. But if you learned anything from it, you might have to change something, so ignorance really is blissful, right? Until it isn't. As non-boomer Neil deGrasse Tyson said recently: "that's the thing about science. It just is. It doesn't matter whether you believe it."

And Dan, paraphrasing ol' Winston, I can address my problem at the gym. It's worked before and it will, again. I have no idea, however, how you could overcome the kind of jerkitude that just keeps coming after an admonition. I like my odds better.

Posted by Tom Cushing,
a resident of Alamo,
on May 16, 2014 at 5:16 am

The degree of license some people will take with anonymity is revealing. Ever hear of the Myth of Gyges (guy, jeez)? In it, Plato tells the story of a guy who finds a ring that makes him invisible to others. Such a thing could be used for good by some wearers, but instead Gyges goes to the palace, rapes the Queen and murders the King.

Sometimes, I think Plato was an optimist, but it's kind of like that, here. Most folks can handle anonymity, but not everyone.

Posted by Jillian Woodward,
a resident of Canyon Oaks,
on May 16, 2014 at 12:48 pm

From my brief read of these posts, I doubt using one's own name would mitigate the ignorance that floods so many of the messages. To the ignorant, I dedicate the following:

Ignorance is Strength

The Republican Party has been at war with science for years now, and though
some of the reasons for it are transparent, their other reasons are worse.
The attack upon climate science of course is a hat-in-hand truckling to the
oil and coal industries. The vilification of Darwin is a sop to religion.
But that's not the half of it.

Science, as generally misunderstood, has two primary meanings. One is the
technical armament that produced rocket engines, jet planes, bombs, and, all
right, medicines that can cure cancer - all the gleaming tubes, silicon
chips and fantastically expensive machines that produced modern life.
But underlying that, science is a way of thinking: a testing of reality so
that facts can be ascertained, and then a submission of those facts to
humanity, so that someone, anywhere, can disprove the fact, if he can.

The purpose of scientific journals is not for scientists to accumulate chits ina game of advancement, but to lay out the data so that others can replicate or disprove it. A scientific article is an invitation to refutation.

It's this way of thinking that the Republicans abhor, and attack, to the
debasement of science, our country, and to thought itself.
In attacking science, Republicans state outright that scientists whose
observations lead to conclusions at odds with the goals of The Party have
some insidious, secret agenda - generally, to weaken America and the
capitalists who give so generously to the Republican Party.
Actually, it's the Republican attack upon science that is weakening America.

The same thing happened in the old Soviet Union, when Stalin's anointed
biologist, Trofim Lysenko, decreed that acquired characteristics could be
inherited. Lysenko decreed this to prove his master's diktat that Russia
could build a New Soviet Man.

This set back Russian biology for two generations. There is very little difference between Lysenko's truckling to Stalin and the Republican Party's truckling to ignorance for the advancement of The Party. Nor is there much difference between the Republicans' jeremiads and the Germans' attacks, 75 years ago, against "Jewish science," as opposed to"German science." The only real difference is whether one truckles to one ignorant master or to ignorance in general.

There is such a thing as objective truth: a truth that holds good no matter
what you think of it. For instance, large masses have gravity, and attract
other masses. Continental drift happens, and causes earthquakes. Planets
travel in elliptical orbits around the sun. Penicillin kills germs that can
kill you, but the germs can evolve to adapt to penicillin, and kill you
anyway.

To declare, as leading Republicans do today, that climate scientists have a
secret agenda to undermine American business, and that biologists have a
secret agenda to undermine the Truths of Religion, is Soviet thought. It's
an obsessive thought, which is not really thought at all.

The Republican Party's attack upon science is an attack upon thought. It
will cost America dearly in the long run, and already has cost us. It is a
virulent attack upon reality. It is Big Brother. It is a declaration that
truth no longer matters: what matters is The Party.

Posted by Conservator,
a resident of Danville,
on May 16, 2014 at 4:08 pm

Daniel,

Did you actually read the article you referenced? He espouses what all scientists are trained to exude - a healthy degree of skepticism. Clearly, he is interested in the what the data says and not what a red or blue oriented political party desires.

As the good professor articulated in his interview (below), he clearly does not believe that business as usual is the proper course of action. Whatever direction society ultimately takes on this visceral and derisive issue should be data-driven in his mind. I tend to agree with him.

If you're going to sham quote scientists into talking points, at least spend the time to find one that supports your caustic literary intentions.

Yours truly, Conservator

For the unwashed masses that might take your soundbite and run:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The people at GWPF don't exactly have a reputation for reconsidering their opinions. Have you become a so-called climate skeptic?

Bengtsson: I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But weren't you one of the alarmists 20 years ago? Do you think your position at that time was wrong?

Bengtsson: I have not changed my view on a fundamental level. I have never seen myself as an alarmist but rather as a scientist with a critical viewpoint, and in that sense I have always been a skeptic. I have devoted most of my career to developing models for predicting the weather, and in doing so I have learned the importance of validating forecasts against observed weather. As a result, that's an approach I strongly favor for "climate predictions." It's essential to validate model results, especially when dealing with complex systems such as the climate. It's essential do so properly if such predictions are to be considered credible.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So do you suggest we should carry on with business as usual just because forecasts are complicated?

Bengtsson: No. I think the best and perhaps only sensible policy for the future is to prepare society for change and be prepared to adjust. In 25 years, we'll have a world with some 9 to 10 billion people that will require twice as much primary energy as today. We must embrace new science and technology in a more positive way than we presently do in Europe. This includes, for example, nuclear energy and genetic food production to provide the world what it urgently needs.

Not a chirp from the alarmists on ice expansion at both poles....as expected.

I love the last sentence of Bengtsson quote above; "This includes, for example, nuclear energy and genetic food production to provide the world what it urgently needs." I can see Jillian, Tom, Al and the rest of 'em popping massive doses of blood pressure pills on that one.

Speaking of Mr. Bengtsson he popped up in the London times this week. The Times of London reported that Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of a think tank after being subjected to ?McCarthy-style pressure? from other academics. Pressure even reportedly came from one U.S. government scientist.

Bengtsson told the Times of London this week: "It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with computer models."

He added, "If people are proposing to do major changes to the world's economic system we must have much more solid information."

You see, he wrote a paper that was rejected by a reviewer at a "leading" academic journal because the reviewer found it harmful to the climate change agenda. Bengtsson's paper, submitted to the journal Environmental Research Letters, found that greenhouse gas emissions might be less harmful and cause less warming than computer models project. Bengtsson has paid a steep price for his piece as the global warming establishment is doing everything it can to smear his reputation.

The climate change alarmists MO is to; lie, twist the data in their favor however they can, refute and smear anyone who challenges them, deny access to research monies for those who do not agree and refuse to print opposing papers in journals.

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 16, 2014 at 10:54 pmFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Oh Conservator, you card you. I'm not at all surprised you left out the following little exchange:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But the IPCC report discusses these problems in detail.

Bengtsson: Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. IT DOES NOT BRING UP THE LARGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OBSERVATIONAL RESULTS AND MODEL SIMULATIONS. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. TO AIM FOR A SIMPLISTIC COURSE OF ACTION IN AN AREA THAT IS AS COMPLEX AND AS INCOMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD AS THE CLIMATE SYSTEM DOES NOT MAKE SENSE AT ALL IN MY OPINION.

Emphasis mine.

You were saying something about my not reading this article...?

Next time you want to discuss something, bring the data and let's have at it. Otherwise you just look foolish trying your little gotchas!

Posted by Conservator,
a resident of Danville,
on May 17, 2014 at 10:35 am

Daniel,

The full article was graciously provided by yourself. My extracts were simply to emphasize that the cited expert communicates in a manner consistent with all trained and experienced scientists. Your point, once one attenuates the wheat from the chaff, is that this man "switched sides" as if we're at half-time of the big game and the star of one team comes out of the locker room wearing the other team's jersey.

Seeing as the current 'sides' of this issue see this as some sort of Roman chariot race within a kind of Circus Maximus where there will be a glorious victor on one hand and protein for the lions on the other, I personally believe that this issue will NOT be solved, politically or technologically, within our lifetimes. More so to my beliefs, the discussion put forth globally to date on this topic are just simply palliative to the burdens of post-industial revolution life. If you're of a more gilded age, WE inherited an existence from our parents that had all the hallmarks of what they inherited from theirs (e.g. all expenses paid 'tours' of far away lands, the expectation that anything one could put into or do in a Chevy was just good for the country at large, a Levittown home to call your own and so forth). But something changed. We got it much better then they could have ever imagined.

Our generation has simply too much to give up, too many spoils of contemporary life, to earnestly consider any of this talk of climatic change but more specifically LIFESTYLE CHANGE to be substantive. We all know the struggles that our parents had coming out of the Depression and then the war. Thus, as one visceral contributor to this board regularly points out (paraphrase), "I like my Hummer. I just don't want to pay any taxes for it". Why again, would any self-serving grey-hair (note NOT blue) want to acknowledge something like climate change?

So, I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with Professor Bengtsson's opinion that a "SIMPLISTIC COURSE OF ACTION IN AN AREA THAT IS AS COMPLEX AND AS INCOMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD AS THE CLIMATE SYSTEM DOES NOT MAKE SENSE AT ALL." I frankly believe, that this was the point that Tom C was emphasizing in column that the exponential complexity of the challenge before us, but in all reality our grandchildren and their children, is one of dealing with a global population of 9-10 billion souls while using the tools intended to just 2 billion (ref. Web Link).

So till the current generation that is in global financial and economic power rides off into the sunset, we'll all just play small ball on this topic. The real gamesmanship will surely come sometime after the first 1/3rd of this century is in the books (i.e. 2028 or 2032 election years).

Now, shifting to BASEBALL - How about them Athletics? TC - I think it's time for another column on our boys in green and gold.

Posted by Conservator,
a resident of Danville,
on May 17, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Dear Daniel,

I didn't want to spare you, just entertain you. For every action does deserve a proper reaction.

Believe as you wish as all of us will do the same. My point, which is an opinion no matter how much I believe it true, is that all of this back and forth gibberish is 'poppycock'. Surely, you're old enough to recognized the vernacular usage I've employed. None of this will be settled. The visionaries will try to guide the conversation. The reactionaries will do everything humanly possible stymie any form of change. The capitalists will make every effort to make profit from both sides as they try to humble each other.

I greatly suspect that, based on my regular reading of Tom's columns, if you perceive that he has a singular, solely transparent point to get across in any of his columns, then you my friend, may wish to read opinions elsewhere. Whether one chooses the contemporary nomenclature of climate change or the more passé 'global warming', 'ozone depletion', and so forth, the point is that life as usual will be very, very hard to maintain in a world that has 10 Billion souls, all wanting air conditioning and a brand new car, as it is to support the 7+ Billion we have around today. Of course, that's an opinion and not a fact.

Posted by Conservator,
a resident of Danville,
on May 17, 2014 at 9:10 pm

Dear Daniel,

Fantastic response. I've only known a few academics over the years that occasionally use the adjective 'jejune' to define a dry conversation. Please allow me to acknowledge your impressive command of the English vernacular.

In terms of your request, what data pray-tell would provide you with sufficient argument to defend my point AND opinion that this silly back-n-forth argument will never be settled by the current generation of discussants? That may be data that only the Good Lord's database manager can access.

Both sides are simply too entrenched. Akin to many a boardroom or courtroom, the two principal discussion components are grossly disproportionate aspects of 'fear' and 'greed'. The 'fear' is in potential change to either one's lifestyle or even living. The 'greed' comes from wanting to dominate in any way humanly possible. It could be this argument or anything else.

So back to what data would satiate that impecable curiosity of yours. You believe that the world is not warming? Great. Good for you. Do you believe that we are just one solar eclipse away from alien invasion? Even better - well, perhaps. As I highlighted earlier, this is all poppycock to anyone over the age of 55 or there about. Although Tom made some admirable points in his long ago column, the generation of contemporary power will never cede to accept that change MAY visit our doorstep. It's too hard. From that standpoint, you should be really happy, I suppose. For those of us that grew up in a very different era, the vast majority are not about to accept someone telling them to stop using their A/C or driving their SUV if you prefer that notion.

Those hard assessments, decisions and actions will be left to subsequent generations who will address what we could not. It's just that simple, in my OPINION.

I must have impressed you with my searching skills. Clearly, I have you mystified. All I could find on Bridle Creek was a modest but pleasant looking apartment complex in Modesto. Surely, that must not be accurate.

Posted by Conservator,
a resident of Danville,
on May 18, 2014 at 5:24 pm

Daniel,

We keep missing each other points. Perhaps, bad form on my part. Love-15, my service. Fair?

Let me try this again without the unintentional 'double-faults'.

HOW do one fact check the impact of a global population increase to a projected 10 Billion souls by 2062 from some 7 Billion today (Web Link, Ref. Summary Table, Section: World Population: Past, Present and Future) upon global resources and the corresponding impact upon climatic conditions?

Can you reasonably project that a world with 10 Billion souls will be 'stressed' more so then what is realized today? Should we presume that technological advances will address our global needs?

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 18, 2014 at 8:51 pmFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Conservator,

"HOW do one fact check the impact of a global population increase to a projected 10 Billion souls by 2062 from some 7 Billion today (Web Link, Ref. Summary Table, Section: World Population: Past, Present and Future) upon global resources and the corresponding impact upon climatic conditions?"

I'll bite...how does one? :) Take a position and defend it Conservator.

And if you can provide an answer to your first hypothesis, maybe you can tell us how you tested for it?

Now provide answers for your other questions. Once you done that, then I can either agree or disagree based on the data that you provide.

I am so sad Tom deleted Jillian?s latest posts before I had a chance to read them.

I don?t know about you guys, but I was mesmerized by his earlier post about the primary meanings of science and scientific journals, Stalin, the Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko, Nazis, gravity, continental drift, earthquakes, elliptical orbits, Penicillin.

Posted by Conservator,
a resident of Danville,
on May 19, 2014 at 1:41 pm

Dear Daniel,

My goodness, you surely realize that we are empirically proving the Einsteinian definition of insanity by repeating the same process over and over again with the errant but conscious perspective that a new outcome may eventually occur?

I will offer you my thesis to try to extract us from spiraling further into the cesspool of internet communications. You can review it and then adjudicate as an all knowing savant. However, show some savvy to the aspect that this type of discussion hardly has the decorum of a proper chess match or high school debate. One typically cares not whether one agrees or disagrees.

First point ? YOU CAN?T fact check a prediction. If numerical analysis is your thing as it once was for me, then you know exactly what I will provide next. But first, a question. Ever wonder why the very best statisticians and numerical analysts always seem to still have to work for a living? Hmmm?it?s because they understand all too well the first fundamental of data analysis. You can only ?speak? confidently to the data you know and observed yesterday while you can only offer a probabilistic ?prediction? to what you perceive will occur tomorrow. More so, your confidence in any form of prediction will correspondingly decrease, typically very much non-linearly, as the date prediction (i.e. next week, next month, next millennia and so forth) increases. If you have ever run a data-model, then you understand that as the scope of what you hope to predict grows, then the inherent intrinsic error of your model will grow with it. Want to predict the weather tomorrow? That?s one thing. Want to predict when the Sahara will return to lush Precambrian conditions? That?s a wholly different thing.

Have contemporary climatic condition models been insufficient in their ability to accurately or even reasonably in all cases predict past weather/climate conditions? ABSOLUTELY, Yes. No surprises. Does this mean that all theories on climate evolution are simply ?bogus?? I believe not. Does Bengtsson acknowledge this opinion and even state that much more needs to be done to develop much high fidelity computational models that factor a much broader set of variables then currently being assessed? You bet.

This is YOUR point. Do we agree? ABSOLUTELY. Today?s climate models are insufficient and will require many more factors to be assessed so as to offer the kind of prediction interval that even a strident skeptic such as you will take note.

Second Point ? Global Population Increase is the causality to climate change as an effect. If you understand those relationships, then you already know what I?ll write next. We?ve already litigated the population ?projections? to the point that there is little left to restate. To be fair, they are predictions governed by the same conditions that I have already defined. I believe that any rational, sane mind will agree that global population WILL increase from current levels. Given that some of us where around in 1950, others not, when the world population post WWII was around some 2.6 Billion individuals, it is not irrational for many of us to perceive that by 2060, it?s projected that we?ll have some 10 Billion souls on Spaceship Earth from today?s nearly 7 Billion or so.

So what do the additional 3 Billion people add or takeaway from the balanced global equation of supply meeting demand as well as resources to consumption? It means that if each of those souls want central heating and A/C as well as a brand new Chevy, it means you build more power plants, you dig more mines, you drill more oil amongst many other aspects regardless of efficiency improvements.

Thus, my earlier position (opined to be more precise) was that one of your ilk has NOTHING to worry about save for token efforts by ?the other side? till at the earliest the 2028 or 2032 US elections? Why? By 2030, not only will 100% of the entire Boomer generation be considered ?old? but also its representative proportion of the voting population will be on an accelerating decline. Since I perceive you are a raving fan of web links, I offer you the following for this point: Web Link.

I for one believe that subsequent generations are much better equipped from a more broadly and worldly vantage of their respective ?seat? on Spaceship Earth to deal with the lurking challenges of global resource demand (i.e. shelter, water, food, energy and Chevys to name a few) then we have every been.

For my sake, I don?t think I?ll be around to see any of the really harsh potential realities come to bear. Perhaps you will be. If you are, good luck with it.

Posted by Formerly Dan from BC,
a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 19, 2014 at 6:54 pmFormerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Conservator,

"Have contemporary climatic condition models been insufficient in their ability to accurately or even reasonably in all cases predict past weather/climate conditions? ABSOLUTELY, Yes"

It's worse than you state here. The models are being DELIBERATELY DISTORTED to show an extreme outcome. An outcome that is being used to cause panic. That's been the issue the whole time. You continue to conveniently, but politely, leave that out of every discussion we've had.

I'll have to re-read your second point. I'm trying to wrap my head around what your bottom-line seems to be here.